Bikers' Effort to Block Helmet Law Rejected : Safety: Superior Court judge refuses to grant an order stopping implementation of the measure, which takes effect New Year's Day.

CATHERINE GEWERTZTIMES STAFF WRITER

Motorcyclists fighting for the right to feel the wind in their hair lost the first round Friday in a court battle to block enforcement of the state's new mandatory-helmet law, which takes effect on New Year's Day.

Sweeping aside a freedom-of-choice argument, Orange County Superior Court Judge James J. Alfano rejected the bikers' bid for an order temporarily halting implementation of the controversial measure. Alfano said the motorcyclists failed to show that irreparable harm would result if the law was enforced--the legal criterion for a restraining order.

After the ruling, Tim Buhl, 26, a leather-jacketed mechanic and a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the helmet law, stalked out of the courtroom. The San Clemente man contends that the legislation treads on his freedom and is fueled by greedy insurance companies.

"Is this what America is about--red, white and money?" he fumed, the spur of one black boot clicking as he paced the hall.

Buhl and three other motorcyclists claim that the helmet law violates their constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression in deciding what to wear and how to protect themselves.

"The state, ostensibly to protect safety, is really taking away freedom of choice," said Wendy C. Lascher, a Ventura attorney representing the bikers. "It's saying, 'We the state are going to decide what's good for you.' "

Lascher says she plans to ask an appeals court on Monday to stop the new law. Alfano will consider the main allegations of the bikers' lawsuit--that it is a violation of their constitutional rights--at a hearing set for Feb. 26.

One plaintiff, a Sikh minister from Monterey, contends that the legislation discriminates against his religion, noting that he must choose between wearing his turban--a tenet of his faith--and a helmet. Another, a hard-of-hearing El Segundo man, feels the law is biased against the handicapped because helmets generate ear-splitting feedback from his hearing aids.

Assemblyman Richard Floyd, the Gardena Democrat who pushed for the measure for a decade, dismissed his critics bluntly. In a telephone interview, he sighed wearily that he has "heard 'em all."

As for the Sikh, Floyd said, "Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. He can wrap his turban around the helmet." Regarding the hard-of-hearing man, Floyd quipped, "As far as I'm concerned, that s.o.b. can walk."

A small revision in the motorcyclists' dress code, Floyd said, is worth protecting lives and saving tax dollars by reducing the need to provide medical care to uninsured cyclists.

Dr. Kenneth Waxman, who directs the trauma center at UC Irvine Medical Center, said he is glad the law will go into effect. Believing it can avert "devastating head injuries," Waxman joined emergency physicians around the state in lobbying hard for the legislation.

Over the rallies and protests of thousands of motorcyclists, Gov. Pete Wilson signed the mandatory-helmet law in May. Now, many bikers are clamoring for a "Day of Defiance" next month in Sacramento, where they will roar into town and publicly refuse to don helmets.

California, with 20% of the nation's registered motorcycles, has long been a haven for helmetless biking. The state requires headgear only for those younger than 15 1/2. But come 1992, it will join 23 other states and the District of Columbia in requiring helmets for all motorcyclists.

The California Highway Patrol has said it will observe a 90-day grace period, warning lawbreakers. After that, a first offense will bring a $100 fine, a second citation $200, and a third, $250.

Bikers say the fines will not make the roads any safer. They fault helmets for causing spinal injury in a collision and reducing two critical safety elements--the rider's hearing and peripheral vision.

But Waxman said his research has shown that helmets do not increase the risk of neck injuries. In the October issue of the Western Journal of Medicine, Waxman and a colleague analyzed 474 motorcycle injuries treated at UC Irvine in 1987 and 1988.

They found that head injuries were more severe for the 236 people who were not wearing helmets, and that they were more seriously disabled after discharge. Their average hospital bills also were higher--$30,000 compared to $16,000 for those who wore helmets.

Motorcyclists have urged legislators to implement expanded motorcycle safety programs instead of imposing restrictions on riders. But helmet-law proponents keep citing California Highway Patrol statistics showing that in California last year, only 94 of the 569 motorcyclists who died were wearing helmets. Of the 18,578 injured, only 4,538 wore head protection.